A. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. I.T.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this prosecution initiated against the Petitioner, by the Respondent, who is the Income -tax Officer, City Circle 1(4), Madras, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras in E.O.C.C. No. 636 of 1985, has framed charges under Section 193 I.P.C. read with Section 136 of the Income -tax Act, Section 196 I.P.C. and Section 276 -C(1) read with Section 278 -C of the Income -tax Act.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court, under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charges framed, as being totally opposed to oral and documentary evidence and further there being no ground for presuming, that the Petitioner had committed any of the offences, on the basis of the complaint laid and evidence adduced which if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the Petitioner.

(3.) THE sale agreement stated to have been returned by the seller to the Petitioner, was not produced before the search party by the Petitioner, but, it has been later produced by the prosecution as Ex.P. -6 before the trial Magistrate. The Petitioner had given Form No. 37 -G, prescribed under Rule 48 -G of the Income -tax Rules and under Section 269 -P of the Income -tax Act, before the District Registrar, solemnly declaring that the market value of the property was as recorded in the registered sale deeds Exs.P -2 and P -3; whereas the truth is that the Petitioner had paid Rs. 3,85,000/ - towards the market value of the property purchased, but had the documents registered for a lesser consideration totalling to Rs. 92,000/ - only. The Respondent would have it, that the Petitioner had understated the real purchase consideration and thereby tried to conceal the unexplained investment of Rs. 2,93,000/ - in the purchase of property and thereby committed the offences for which he has now been charged.